Portsmouth City Council (202307865)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307865

Portsmouth City Council

4 September 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. concerns about the block refurbishment project, and associated communications;
2. concerns about his decant;
3. reports of garage area parking issues;
4. concerns regarding its contractor’s disclosure barring service (DBS) checks;
5. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a joint secure tenancy that began on 4 April 2011. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette, and is on the second floor of a 3 storey block. The block contains 11 other properties, and has a second similar block next to it.
The landlord is a council. For the purposes of this report the housing directorate of the council is referred to as ‘the landlord’. Any other service area of the council is referred to as ‘the local authority’ (LA).
In October 2020 the landlord began an evaluation exercise in readiness for a major refurbishment project of both blocks. The same month the landlord had a refurbishment and demolition survey completed for the purposes of identifying asbestos containing materials (ACM). The resultant report noted the reasons that it had been unable to access the roof. The report instructed the actions that must be taken by the landlord if any suspected ACM were identified during the works, which included stopping works immediately.
In early 2022 the landlord began the refurbishment project. The works to the resident’s block included renewal of the roof, stairwell, soffits, walkways, balustrade, and brickworks, along with repairs and refurbishments of garages and other items. The project was scheduled for completion in August 2022.
In May 2022 the landlord discovered ACM in the roof that it recorded was not typical of the construction type. The roof works therefore became licensed (Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012), required procurement of a further qualified contractor, a revised scope and plan, and significantly delayed the project.
In July 2022 the landlord hand delivered letters to all residents of the block to advise of the ACM discovery, and how it intended to deal with it. The landlord’s further letter the same month stated that it now aimed to begin the roof removal works on 30 August 2022. It reiterated its intention to work above 1 second floor property at a time, which the resident would need to vacate during working hours only. It provided details of the facilities that would be available, and the steps it would take to minimise disruption to residents.
Later in July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that its scaffold was preventing him from safely accessing his garage. The landlord attended site the same day, and established that access to the resident’s garage was difficult but still possible. The landlord spoke with the resident on 27 and 28 July, and had the scaffold altered on 29 July 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 August 2022 to confirm its actions, and apologise for the inconvenience. The matter was handled as a ‘service query’ rather than as a formal complaint.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to issue its written response within 15 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively. It said that where it was not able to meet those timescales, “we will let the customer know”.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
On 18 March and 2 April 2023, the resident made complaints about the refurbishment project to the landlord and LA respectively, which the landlord confirmed it would handle as a single complaint. The resident subsequently escalated his complaint, and completed the landlord’s procedure.
In July 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord concerning parking issues. In November 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord concerning the competence of 1 of its staff members. The landlord responded to both of the resident’s complaints at stage 1 of its procedure, and again advised him how he could escalate his complaints. In both cases the resident opted not to complete the landlord’s procedure by escalating his complaints to stage 2.
It is therefore the view of the Ombudsman that the resident’s July and November 2023 complaints have been made “prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. As such, while details of both complaints are included below for the purpose of context, they do not form part of the Ombudsman’s investigation or assessment. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord in February 2024, after his original complaint had been duly made to the Ombudsman. This complaint has been referred to below, but also does not form part of the investigation.
This investigation is therefore focused on the resident’s March and April 2023 complaint, which did exhaust the landlord’s procedure.

Summary of events

On 9 March 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents of the block to advise that contrary to its previous advice, they would need to move out of their properties for the duration of the works to the roof directly above their property. It advised that this would be done 1 property at a time, provided details of the intended arrangements, and said that each resident would be contacted individually with further information and to identify their needs.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident further to their meeting on 9 March 2023, and in response to a text message he had sent. It explained that its contractor had notified it in mid-February 2023 of the need for second floor residents to decant during the roof works. It said that it had then reviewed all options, and developed a plan of action, before it had informed residents on 9 March 2023. It provided the resident with updates on other elements of the works.
On 18 March 2023 the resident made his complaint to the landlord concerning the block refurbishment works. The resident expressed his concern that, despite previous promises to the contrary, the landlord wanted to decant him and his wife. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the delays, communications, and overall handling of the refurbishment project. His key points were as follows:
1. He asked why the landlord had been aware for 3 weeks that he would need to be decanted without telling him, why he had found out from the contractor, and why the decant was necessary.
2. He stated that he was unwilling to give his property keys to the contractor, and asked if they had undergone DBS checks.
3. He asked why the contractors finished working early every Friday, and when the works to the stairwell and garages would be done.
4. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the ground floor property that they were due to be decanted to, and asked to be moved into the neighbouring property instead.
5. He asked why the information board had been removed, and asked that it be returned and properly used.
On 22 and 31 March 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents of the block with further works updates. On 29 March 2023 the landlord sent the resident written acknowledgement, and a summary of its understanding of his complaint.
On 2 April 2023 the resident sent a copy of his complaint to the LA, with a brief covering letter that reiterated some of its points. On 4 April 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s further letter, and confirmed its intention to handle the matter as a single complaint. The landlord reissued the resident’s its previous acknowledgement letter, which stated that it would aim to respond to his complaint by 20 April 2023.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord issued its 8 page stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord acknowledged that works were originally planned to take 8 months, but had been ongoing for 14. It provided a detailed explanation of the reasons for the delays, which primarily concerned the construction type, and unexpected discovery of ACM in the roof. The landlord’s further key points were as follows:
1. It explained how, and why it had reached its decant decision. It said that its contractor had spoken about this to residents in an efforts to assist, but without the landlord’s knowledge, and before it had formally told residents itself. It agreed that this information should have come from it, rather than the contractor, and apologised that this was not the case.
2. It stated that it was happy to work with the resident to resolve access to his property without the need for him to hand over his keys, and suggested how this could be done.
3. It stated that it had not asked the contractor to complete DBS checks, as there was no legal requirement to do so for a project of that type.
4. It said that regarding its contractor’s Friday finishes, it could not enforce specific site attendance times, but that the contract had financial incentives for timeframes, and performance.
5. It explained and apologised for the time that the stairwell work was taking, and offered assurances. It did the same regarding the garage roof works, which it said would now be omitted from the project with repairs completed instead.
6. It assured the resident that the decant property would have a professional deep clean prior to his move, and that its tenant liaison officer (TLO) would contact him to resolve any other concerns.
7. It advised that the information boards had been removed due to them being used in inappropriate ways. It said that it would trial their reintroduction.
8. It provided a lengthy summary that recognised how challenging the project had been, apologised, and reiterated its explanations and assurances.
9. It advised how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
On 21 April 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents of the block. It provided a works update, and a summary of the resident engagement event from 2 days earlier, which it said would be repeated every 8 weeks. It said that the roof removal was planned to be completed by mid-July 2023. It confirmed that any operatives who needed to access tenant’s properties would have had a standard DBS check. It said that it would make a goodwill £250 payment to all top floor property residents.
On 2 May 2023 the resident temporarily moved into the furnished ground floor property for which the landlord had provided a television, internet access, and other amenities.
On 15 May 2023 the landlord received the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, which was dated 6 May 2023. The resident stated that he understood the landlord’s explanations, but had further queries. His key points were as follows:
1. He said that the information regarding contractor DBS checks provided at stage 1 contradicted the landlord’s subsequent letter, and asked for clarity.
2. He complained about the wasted funds spent on the unused garage scaffold, and that it had taken up over half of the available parking spaces. He asked the landlord to stop paying for the scaffold, tidy up the area, and restore the parking.
3. He complained that he and his wife had needed to spend a day cleaning their temporary ground floor property. He highlighted that they were not young, and had been left to move their belongings with no assistance.
4. He said that he had only found out from a neighbour that he was supposed to be moving back upstairs into his property on 16 May 2023. He highlighted the stress and inconvenience of having to do this around work commitments.
On 17 May 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents of the block with a further works update, and notification of its next 3 resident engagement events held at the community hall opposite. On 19 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that he would not accept the £250 goodwill payment that it had offered to all top floor residents. He complained that the landlord was preferentially assisting other residents over him, and raised other points of dissatisfaction regarding the works.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows:
1. It clarified that its stage 1 advice regarding DBS checks not being a legal requirement was correct, but that its subsequent advice that the contractors involved in the project did have DBS checks was also accurate. It apologised for any confusion caused.
2. It provided a further detailed update regarding the works to the stairwell. It explained that the garage scaffold was a fixed cost, with nothing additional incurred because of it still being up. It stated that garage roof repairs were scheduled for June 2023, after which the scaffold would be removed. It apologised that the scaffold was impacting parking spaces.
3. It said that its TLO had met the resident’s wife at the temporary property prior to their move, and had implemented a number of cleaning and other requirements that were identified. It said that no further cleanliness issues had been reported to it during the resident’s occupation but apologised if he found it unsatisfactory. It said that it had fed this back to its project team.
4. It said that its TLO had also discussed decant support requirements with the resident prior to his move, but no specific requests were made. It said that it became aware that the resident had support needs shortly before he moved back to his property, which it had provided.
5. It accepted that it would have been better to offer support with the resident’s first move as a matter of course, rather than leaving it to the resident to request it. It apologised that it had not, and stated its learning with regards to being clearer about what support was available.
6. It acknowledged again the challenging unforeseen issues that had impacted the works. It accepted that communications could always be improved, committed to do this, and to put in place further measures to reduce inconvenience.
7. It referred the resident to the Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 18 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s further complaint concerning the contractor parking outside of his garage. It confirmed its understanding that the resident was seeking for no parking signs to be put up.
On 25 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, which advised the actions it had taken including putting up no parking signs. It advised the resident how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied, but the resident opted not to.
On 27 October 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents of the block to advise that it had terminated the contract of the main contractor of the refurbishment works. It explained its performance issue reasons for doing this. It said that its new contractor would begin its handover on 30 October 2023, and restart works on 13 November 2023. It provided direct contact details for any residents who wanted to discuss this, and advised of its forthcoming ‘meet the contractor’ event.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord acknowledged, and confirmed its understanding of the resident’s further complaint concerning the competence of its lead surveyor. On 5 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, which provided details of the lead surveyor’s experience of other complex projects, and its satisfaction that she was suitable for the role. It advised the resident how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied, but the resident opted not to.
During this investigation the landlord was asked to provide the Service with an update of the refurbishment project. The landlord advised that the resident’s block suffered a roof leak in February 2024 which, along with other factors, had caused a further delay. It provided details of the remaining works. It stated that it had communicated to residents in its August 2024 newsletter that it expected works to be completed, and scaffold removed, by 18 October 2024. The landlord advised the Service that it had received a further complaint from the resident regarding the roof leak.

Assessment and findings

The landlord did not dispute that its refurbishment project had proven to be “uncommonly problematic”, and significantly delayed by the discovery of ACM and other factors. The Ombudsman readily acknowledges that this would have been frustrating, wearing, and at times disruptive for the resident.
Nevertheless, the substantial information provided by the landlord did demonstrate the robust planning and preparation that it did ahead of the project commencing. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the various issues encountered were either foreseeable, or caused by the landlord’s service failings. The landlord further demonstrated its close monitoring of its contractor’s performance and, 6 months after the resident’s complaint had concluded, its decisive action to this regard. The landlord also evidenced its regular communications and meetings with all residents, and its timely responses to the resident’s specific queries.
The resident’s 2 week decant to the ground floor property would have been inconvenient, and again frustrating for him, particularly as it was originally considered unnecessary. However, the landlord provided a thorough explanation as to why it had changed its original position. The landlord evidenced its significant efforts to mitigate the resident’s inconvenience, and made a goodwill payment offer to prevent him from incurring any associated financial cost.
The resident’s original complaint to the landlord did not refer to parking issues, but his escalation request complained that the garage scaffold was taking up parking spaces. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience, and offered an appropriate explanation of its position and intention for the scaffold to be removed within a month. The resident’s subsequent complaint specifically about parking issues was resolved at stage 1 of the landlord’s process, and as such has not been considered.
The landlord relied on appropriate information to advise the resident that there was no legal requirement for DBS checks. However, while its advice was factually accurate, it was a shortcoming that it did not check whether the contractor had them anyway, which would have prevented the subsequent confusion. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for this, without undue detriment being caused.
The landlord’s complaint responses were empathetic, and demonstrated a customer and resolution focused approach. The landlord provided extremely comprehensive explanations for the often complex works issues, and ensured that it responded to every point raised by the resident.
As above, the Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident experienced, disruption, inconvenience, and frustration. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that this resulted from service failings, and the landlord has demonstrated its largely reasonable handling of the resident’s March 2023 complaint, and associated matters. A finding of no maladministration on all counts has therefore been made.

Refurbishment project, and associated communications

The refurbishment project was originally planned to be completed in 8 months. It was understandable that the resident would be frustrated that most of the work remained outstanding when he made his complaint to the landlord 14 months after the start of the project. It is not disputed that the significant delays were primarily caused by the discovery of ACM in the roof. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the delay could have been prevented if the ACM had been identified ahead of the project starting.
However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the view of its qualified staff that ACM were not common for the building’s construction type. For the purposes of the landlord’s October 2020 asbestos survey, access to the roof structure would have involved the erection of scaffold, and intrusive works. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice of its specialist contractor, with regards to the inaccessibility of the roof structure, and the actions it must take if ACM were discovered during the works.
The landlord has evidenced its regular site inspections and contractor progress meetings, prior to, and around the time of the resident’s complaint. It has also demonstrated its robust methods for measuring, and monitoring the performance of its main contractor. The contractor subsequently failed to meet the progress, and other performance metrics of its contract. The landlord has evidenced its decisive actions in terms of changing the contractor as soon as it was contractually able to do so. However, this was 6 months after the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, and as such has not been considered.
The landlord provided the Service with 12 examples of the refurbishment project newsletter that it provided to all occupants of the blocks including the resident. The newsletter provided a concise works updates, forthcoming dates of note, and a frequently asked questions section. It was appropriate that the newsletter also provided names, and direct dial contact for the project’s key landlord and contractor staff.
The landlord has evidenced its regular engagement events held for residents who wished to raise concerns or queries about the refurbishment project. The landlord also wrote to all residents with updates throughout the project. It was appropriate for it to hand deliver its letter that advised of the ACM discovery, which would have given residents the opportunity to raise further specific concerns or queries.
Earlier in the project the landlord had also used a site information board as a further means of communication. The landlord removed the board after repeated incidents of profanities being written on it. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to trial its reintroduction when the resident raised the matter in his complaint.
The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately assessed below, but the landlord has demonstrated that it largely responded to any other specific queries from the resident in a timely manner. The landlord’s overall communications to the resident regarding the project were therefore reasonable.
As above, it is not disputed that the project delays would have caused significant frustration to the resident. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that this will have been compounded by the further delays, and issues that the resident has experienced after the period assessed. Nevertheless, for the reasons explained above, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the refurbishment project, and associated communications.

Decant

In February 2023 the contractor highlighted to the landlord how much more effectively, and quickly it could complete the roof works if the residents of the property directly below were to temporarily decant. The landlord worked on a plan that would allow this to happen 1 property at a time, and with the aim of minimising disruption, which it communicated to all residents on 9 March 2023.
In the intervening period, and unbeknownst to the landlord, the contractor spoke with the resident about the matter in what it thought was an effort to be helpful. As the landlord later acknowledged, it would have been preferable for this information to come directly from it, and it was a shortcoming that it did not. It was appropriate for landlord to apologise, and explain why this had occurred to the resident.
The landlord visited the resident on the same day that it had written to all residents to advise of its decant intentions. This would have given the resident the opportunity to raise any specific concerns or needs. The landlord had prepared a ground floor property for residents to move into for their approximately 2 week decant, which was deep cleaned after each occupancy. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer all second floor residents a £250 goodwill payment, which it said was to ensure nobody incurred any financial loss as a result of their decant. It was unclear why the resident declined this payment, but the Ombudsman has made a recommendation to this regard.
The resident moved into the ground floor property after he had completed stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint process, but prior to his stage 2 escalation request. The property was deep cleaned after the prior resident had moved out, following which it was appropriate for the landlord to complete a joint inspection with the resident’s wife. The resident’s wife raised a range of additional requirements, including the provision of a new mattress, tumble dryer, freezer, and additional cleaning of the fridge and kitchen drawers. It was reasonable for the landlord to implement all of this prior to the resident moving in on 2 May 2023.
The resident sent the landlord his complaint escalation letter via recorded delivery on 6 May 2023. It was unclear why, but the stamped copy of it provided to the Service confirmed that the landlord did not receive it until 15 May 2023, just before the resident was about to move back into his property. The resident’s escalation request included his dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of the decant property. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident made any other report of cleanliness issues that the landlord could have responded to during his decant.
The resident’s escalation request also complained that the landlord had not provided he and his wife with any assistance in moving belongings into the ground floor property. In response, the landlord highlighted the actions it had taken to understand the resident’s needs, and the opportunities he had to raise anything specific. It was appropriate for the landlord to detail its learning from this, and to provide support to the resident with his move back into his property.
There were some shortcomings in terms of how the resident first found out about the need to decant, and the clarity of the landlord’s advice regarding available support. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his decant was in the main reasonable, and no maladministration has been found.

Parking issues

The resident complained that the scaffold erected around his garage in July 2022 was hampering his safe access. The landlord attended site the same day, altered the scaffold 2 days later, and maintained contact with the resident in between. Given the rapid resolution, it was reasonable for the landlord to handle the matter as a service query, rather than as a formal complaint.
The resident’s original complaint in March 2023 did not refer to parking issues, but he did complain in his escalation request that the garage scaffold was limiting parking spaces. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain its intended timeframe for repairs to the garages following which the scaffold would be removed, and to apologise for the inconvenience.
As above, the resident’s July 2023 parking issues complaint was resolved at stage 1 of the landlord’s process, and as such has not been assessed. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garage area parking issues.

DBS checks

The resident’s complaint to the landlord enquired whether its contractor had completed DBS checks. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to check with its contractor, rather than only advising the resident that it was not a legal requirement, albeit that its advice was accurate.
The landlord gave this information to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response. The day before the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response, it had held a resident engagement event at which the matter of DBS checks had also been raised. The day after the landlord had issued its stage 1 response to the resident, it wrote to all residents with a works update. The letter also confirmed that its contractor’s operatives had standard DBS checks.
It was therefore understandable that the resident’s complaint escalation request to the landlord queried the matter further. It was appropriate for the landlord’s stage 2 response to clarify the matter, and to apologise for any confusion. No undue detriment was caused by the matter, and the Ombudsman has made a further finding of no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its contractor’s DBS checks.

Complaint handling

The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 18 March 2023, and resent it to the LA with a further explanatory letter on 2 April 2023 (it is acknowledged that the resident would view the council as a single entity, but the Ombudsman must separate ‘the landlord’ from the ‘LA’ for jurisdictional reasons).
The landlord sent a written acknowledgement to the resident on both occasions. The landlord’s acknowledgement detailed its understanding of the resident’s complaint, and provided him the opportunity to correct this if necessary. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, on both occasions the landlord advised that it would aim to issue its stage 1 response by 20 April 2023, which was outside of the timescale of either its own policy or the Code.
The landlord’s advice of its target response date to the resident was in and of itself in line with its policy, which stated that it would let residents know where it was unable to meet its own timescales. The need for the landlord to extend its own timescale was also somewhat understandable, given the range of issues raised by the resident’s complaint, and the length and level of detail of its stage 1 response. Nevertheless, it was a shortcoming that the landlord did not provide the resident with an explanation of why it had extended its timescale, and instead only advised him of its target date.
The resident’s 2 subsequent complaints made later in the year have not been assessed, as they did not exhaust the landlord’s procedure. However, it is noted that that the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s November 2023 complaint was issued after 14 working days. While this was within the timescale of the landlord’s policy, it was not in line with the Code. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation to this regard.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 20 April 2023, which was in line with what it had advised him. The landlord responded individually to each of the resident’s points, which was in line with the Code, and is acknowledged would have lengthened its response letter. Nonetheless, its 8 page stage 1 response letter was exceptionally detailed. It is noted that, in this instance, the resident specifically confirmed his understanding of the landlord’s response when he asked for his complaint to be escalated. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to more broadly ensure that its complaint response letters are appropriately accessible to their target audience. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation to this regard.
Aside from the length of the landlord’s stage 1 response, it did provide clear, empathetic, and robust assurances throughout. Its response to the resident’s DBS check query has been separately assessed above, but it did offer practical solutions to the resident’s concerns about handing over his property keys, along with other matters. The landlord’s stage 1 response therefore demonstrated its customer, and resolution focused approach.
The landlord made his written request for the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 6 May 2023, but the landlord did not receive it until 15 May 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 31 May 2023 which, from either date, was in line with the timescales of both its policy and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 letter responded to the resident’s DBS check, parking, decant, and general refurbishment project issues assessed above. It again responded point by point to everything raised by the resident in an empathetic and customer focused manner, and demonstrated its learning where appropriate. As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint was reasonable, and a determination of no maladministration has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. concerns about the block refurbishment project, and associated communications;
2. concerns about his decant;
3. reports of garage area parking issues;
4. concerns regarding its contractor’s disclosure barring service (DBS) checks;
5. associated complaints.

Reasons

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the significant delays to the refurbishment project would have been frustrating for the resident. It is further acknowledged that this will have been compounded by the more recent issues that the resident has experienced, for which he has made a separate complaint to the landlord.
The landlord has evidenced its substantial preparation ahead of the project, and its appropriate performance monitoring of its contractor. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the various issues resulted from poor planning, nor that they were caused by the landlord’s service failings. The landlord has also demonstrated its robust strategy for resident communications associated with the project.
The landlord demonstrated its efforts to mitigate the inconvenience caused by the resident’s decant, and made a goodwill payment offer to him and the other top floor residents.
The resident’s escalation request complained that the garage scaffold was taking up parking spaces, for which the landlord offered an appropriate explanation of its position and intentions. The resident’s subsequent parking complaint was resolved at stage 1 of the landlord’s process, and as such has not been considered.
The landlord’s advice to the resident that there was no legal requirement for DBS checks was accurate, but it could have prevented any confusion if it had confirmed that the contractor had them anyway. The landlord clarified the matter, and apologised to the resident without undue detriment being caused.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was largely reasonable. Its responses were empathetic, and demonstrated a customer and resolution focused approach.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Reoffers its £250 decant goodwill payment to the resident if it has not already been paid.
2. Considers the 15 day timeframe stated in its stage 1 complaints policy, and its process for when it is unable to meet its complaint response timescales, as part of the work it is already doing to comply with the Ombudsman’s statutory Complaint Handling Code.